America is more divided today than it has ever been with the exception of the years leading to the Civil War. Many today do not understand the history behind our political battles. This blog is devoted to that historical rediscovery. As a result, progressive activists will find the articles useful resources in their fight against the Right. Consider all content public domain for those purposes. Forward!

Friday, June 13, 2014

In The
Curse of Ham: Race and Slavery in Early Judaism, Christianity, and
Islam (Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern
World), Daniel Goldenberg writes "Genesis tells of Ham finding his
father Noah drunk and uncovered in his tent. Ham informs his brothers
Shem and Japheth. They, walking backward so as not to see their father's
nakedness, cover Noah with a garment. After Noah awakes from his
drunkenness, he curses—not Ham, and not himself—but Ham's son Canaan by
pronouncing: "Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto
his brethren" (see Genesis 9:20-27). There is no reference to dark skin,
to any skin color, or to Africa, and Noah does not say the curse
applies to Canaan's descendants. Yet this story, as it was amplified and
changed in extrabiblical interpretations, became the ideological
cornerstone used to justify the slavery of black Africans thousands of
years afterwards."

Christopher Hill (England, 1660) quotes the
use of the biblical name of "Ham" as derived from Arabic "Hamam" meaning
"dark," "hot," or "burnt." It was presumed that God had given Ham
Africa as his portion of the world and his cursed descendents were to be
forever slaves to other people (in 17th century England, of course,
white Europeans). Thus, we have derived the "Curse of Ham," descendants
of whom, are conveniently Africans. Still, though, originally, the
curse was laid on Canaan... and, originally, was not meant to devolve
upon his descendants. Daniel Goldenberg, a Jewish scholar who writes on
the "Curse of Ham," finds this difficult to explain, actually... unless
you treat the "Curse of Ham" as a recent political device to support
African slavery.

These points have been drawn upon in the 17th
century Christian world as a reference for Ham's race, skin tone, and
ultimate origin... because "Ham" is a term said to refer to "dark,"
"hot," or "burnt." However, the mis-application of the Arabic meaning
of "Hamam" to the biblical story of "Ham/Canaan" most likely derived
from Muslim occupation of Africa, prior to European occupation beginning
in the 15th century. This loose literary coincidence has been used
since then, most particularly by Mormons, to justify slavery and
segregation. Still, it isn't biblical... the mistaken comparison
occurred over a thousand years after the beginning of Christianity.

This Ham=African slave idea has to do with the history and politics of capitalism, not the Bible.

Africa
had become the source for a great system of laborers to the emerging
system of Dutch/English capitalism that focused upon the lucrative
Caribbean production of "White Gold," or sugar. These fairly recent
biblical interpretations have been used for centuries as a justification
for slavery to produce a product that was so valuable that even God was
said to ignore the plight of the African. Thus, through post-Moorish
Africa-influenced American interpretation of the biblical tale of "Ham,"
God appeared to endorse African slavery. Not surprising that darker,
apparently "burnt" Africans would be interpreted as descendents of Ham
at the introduction of the common usage of Africans as slaves in the
American West Indies... which, of course, led to the development of the
American South.

The 17th century began a biblical justification
for slavery that became institutionalized before Carolina was founded
in 1671, thus transferring the justification of use of the African as
slave to traditional southern American agricultural society which
fervently needed the labor, not so much for sugar, but for other
lucrative crops such as rice and cotton. It is no surprise that the
African has traditionally been viewed in America as God's own choice for
slave and the wealthy European plantation owner as his natural
master... or white, of course, as the color of the supreme ruling class
of America.

Daniel Goldenberg infers that this belief lasted well
into the 20th century, hinting that it may have ended before the 21st.
Goldenberg, however, was being kind to Americans. I am often shocked
to hear this biblically-justified interpretation for white-supremacy in
casual conversations all across America, but most often in the Deep
South... TODAY, yesterday, in fact. They and their neighbors still see
miscegenation or "mixing of the races" as an abomination before God, the
biblical source for 1896's Plessy v. Ferguson (segregation)... and for
their current political views... consistently in history, the Southern
conservative point of view and, now, that of modern Republicans.

"The
Bible says that we're not supposed to mix the races," they said. And,
of course, the unspoken belief is that God meant for whites only to
rule. The problem is that those who read the Bible assume also that
they understand the intricacies of history... this interpreted passage
of Genesis is indisputable, they still believe, because of the
"historical" evidence. They forget that history is also used as a
political device... secondary, or historical interpretation (the
versions that we read in most textbooks) often alters or revises history
for political convenience... for instance, the false belief that
Columbus discovered that the world was round or the retelling of history
to support the Southern political device known as "the Lost Cause."
Easily debatable interpretations of the Bible are certainly not immune.
Thus was born the "Curse of Ham," a favorite political device of the
South.

This Americanized "curse" is still very much alive. Racism is still
very much alive. It is intimately a part of our very own culture from
the beginning of West Indian capitalism in the mid-1600s, well before
1776 and since the beginning of the use of Africans as slaves in America
and carried on by our Amero-Christian tradition to support
white-supremacy, especially since the Civil War, especially since God's
own "chosen" African slaves defied southern society and God's wishes to
free themselves and even demand equality with their white masters. What
moxie! What blasphemy!

Is it any wonder that President Obama
(perceived as a product of miscegenation) receives the opposition that
he does when the deepest feelings of our society are racially encoded by
our own dysfunctional political-religious traditions... our fervent
belief in white-supremacy, cursed Ham, not the originally-cursed Canaan,
as "black" (African), and miscegenation as an abomination before God?

Yeah,we're that messed up.

The choice of Africans as slaves was never a desire or commandment
from God himself, but a very human desire for money and has been used as
justification for the capitalistic institution of business that
brutally abused an entire people for purposes of profit.

Wednesday, May 14, 2014

In
United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United
States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the
Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument
for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second
Amendment to the federal government.

But, why was it enacted? 1876 is a clue... near the end of Reconstruction... when a back-room deal was made for the White House that let the rebels (Confederates) go free.

"The Cruikshank ruling also allowed groups such as the Ku Klux Klan to
flourish and continue to use paramilitary force to suppress black
voting. As whites dominated the Southern legislatures, they turned a
blind eye on the violence, and denied African Americans any right to
bear arms by refusing to pass laws that would have granting them."

It's intent was not to arm for resistance against tyranny, but to arm against blacks.

The
SCOTUS of 1876 was attempting to appease white voters. Why else would
they consider the "right to bear arms" on a par with "life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness?" They were afraid that newly-freed blacks
would try to seize power. Conservatives are afraid once again... after the
election of the first African-American president.

Remember that the SCOTUS recently found (all by themselves) that racism no longer exists in America!! lol Coincidence? Nah...

Sunday, May 11, 2014

"He is richest who is content with the least, for content is the wealth of nature." ~Socrates

"Be careful to leave your sons well instructed rather than rich, for the hopes of the instructed are better than the wealth of the ignorant." ~Epictitus

"The greatest wealth is to live content with little." ~Plato

"I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven." ~Jesus

All quotes promote a simple life, education, sharing and/or lack of riches. These are NOT Republican pro-corporate, anti-equality themes, which are the antithesis of biblical teachings and aged wisdom. Truly, Republicans are anti-democratic.

In other words, you can be Republican today, but you can't be truly christian, humane, or true to American principles at the same time. For freedom should not be valued more than equality, money more than each other. Indeed, the wisest human beings known said so...

Friday, May 9, 2014

This is one of the worst headlines you
could have read in 1870. It's details explained quite horrifically, it
was designed to provoke an emotional response. 33-year-old Martin
VanBuren Blalock operated a grocery in Hillsborough, North Carolina. He was one of many
brothers and sisters born to Hartwell G. and Patsy Herndon Blalock of
Orange County. They lived on the "south side of the North Carolina
railroad." Martin entered the Confederate Army as a corporal in the 6th
regiment from Hillsborough. Before his discharge, he was bucked down
to private and seldom received another mention. He was no one special to the Confederacy before or after the war.

Martin
was found brutally murdered in his grocery in December 1869, a "ghastly
and inhuman spectacle" claimed the article. There was a rope around his
neck, which had been slashed and a pillowcase shoved in his mouth. It
all appeared rather uncoordinated, perhaps multiple attempts to kill
him... or added "evidence" to increase the "ghastliness" of the crime
and confuse the identity of the actual murderer.

Three black men were
arrested. Assuredly, there was evidence, money from Blalock's business
and two confessions of the three black men. The article read, "An
inquest was held, before which a large number of witnesses were
summoned, though unable to fasten guilt upon anybody, suspicion fell at
once upon a negro named Bob Gunn, and two others, called respectively
Young and Lutterloh."

There were many similar incidents
and all of the "legal" attributes remained conveniently uncertain, the actual
provenance of the overwhelming evidence unknown and unrequested because of the
frightened excitement of the white community. The article continues, "Their guilt is now
established, though arrested only on suspicion created by a strong chain
of circumstances." Obviously, these three black men were tried and executed for the
crime. It was, unfortunately, a common tale across the South after the war.

By chance, perhaps, though not likely,
another article two months later tells of an ominous presence centered upon Orange and Alamance Counties. A
group of organized vigilantes that preyed on the "United States and the
Negroes" and their allies. These vigilantes killed even men of
distinction, prominent liberal politicians of the state. They were
organized, intelligent, and composed of ex-Confederates. They were known
as the "White Brotherhood" or "Ku Klux Klan."

Similar oft-used
tactics of white supremacists since the Civil War tended to reduce the
"traitorous Negro" population, as viewed by the white population of North Carolina. These included framing blacks for crimes
that they didn't commit and publicly hanging them. This may or not have
happened with Martin Blalock, but his death late in 1869 coincides with
the rise of the North Carolina KKK activity and the "open and shut"
case against the three black men was probably too good to be true.

New York Herald; Date: 03-14-1870; Volume: XXXV; Issue: 73; Page: 10

Please note the opposition to the "United States government"
or "anti-government" part of the article, a common conservative talking
point today, just as it was yesterday... with these southern
conservatives.

They were organized by one
ex-Confederate, wounded in the face and who could speak but little and
could not exercise his former career at the bar. His latter days as the
Secretary of State for North Carolina were effected from a wheelchair.
His name was William Laurence Saunders.

"In 1922, the [University of North Carolina] named its new history department building for
William L. Saunders to recognize his work as a compiler of historical
documents. Saunders graduated from UNC in 1854 and then practiced law in
Salisbury, North Carolina. During the Civil War, he served as a colonel
and was wounded in two battles. In 1869-1870, he became known as the
chief organizer of the Ku Klux Klan in North Carolina and Chapel Hill.
When [conservative Southern] Democrats regained power in North Carolina, Saunders became
Secretary of State and arranged for the publication of North Carolina’s
colonial records in a series on which historians still rely. He served
as a university trustee from 1874 until 1891."

It's
surprising, yes, that this man would continue to be revered as much as
he was after his known association with a group responsible for untold
murders.

"Two Members of the Ku-Klux Klan in Their Disguises"

Times-Picayune; Date: 07-07-1870;
Page: 6

Kirk-Holden War ----&gt;

Acts
of violence were blamed on blacks, but everyone knew that they were
actually the work of the Ku Klux Klan... including the federal
government.

Capt. Samuel A'Court Ashe, a fellow
Confederate officer and North Carolina lawyer-turned-historian, wrote
the following about William L. Saunders:

During the exciting period of Reconstruction from 1867 to 1870,
Colonel Saunders was deeply interested in public affairs. In 1870, he
contributed to the Wilmington Journal, of which Major Engelhard, his
brother-in-law was editor, an article on the Kirk-Holden War that
attracted wide attention. It was regarded as the strongest and most
perfect article published in the State, and although unsigned, it
established for him an enviable reputation.

The Conservatives were successful at the election held in August, 1870, and obtained control of both houses of the Assembly.

1870 was the first and only time that radical conservatives had control
of both houses until 2012. Their anti-government agenda was wide open
and even the "progressive" elements in the state were harshly racist. North Carolina elections for nearly 100 years involved two
candidates from the same party... both conservative Southern Democrat and both firmly under white
control. Any notion of the then liberal "Republican" party of Lincoln (not the Republican party of today... a common misconception) was
put aside.

The federal government tried to fight back against this harshly Confederate "state's rights" agenda of vengeance. In 1870 and 1871, the federal government instituted the Force Acts
and used them to prosecute Klan crimes. They were criminal codes which
protected blacks’ right to vote, to hold
office, to serve on juries, and receive equal protection under the laws.
The
laws also allowed the federal government to intervene when states did
not act. Prosecution of Klan crimes and enforcement of the Force Acts
suppressed Klan activity. Afterwards, however, newly organized and
openly active paramilitary organizations, such as the White League and
the Red Shirts (see Wilmington Race Riot of 1898),
started a fresh round of violence aimed at suppressing blacks' voting
and running the early liberal version of Lincoln Republicans out of
office. These contributed to segregationist white Democrats regaining
political power in all the Southern states by 1877 when a backroom deal
released the ultra-conservative and unrepentant South from federal Reconstruction policies. They still fight against the federal government today.

It
can be argued that the South never paid their dues for the insurrection
against the government of the United States, an bloody massacre that cost
over 600,000 human lives. All of this began simply to preserve
slavery or the "state's right" of slavery. After the war, KKK activity was directed solely as retribution against
blacks and their supporters for their betrayal of white southerners'
previous "generosity."

William Holden, the governor who tried to
end the violence was impeached by the KKK-supported North Carolina
government and the acts continued.

On the 23rd of
September 1872, the soon-to-be Secretary of State for North Carolina,
William Laurence Saunders was summoned to appear before a Congressional
Joint Select Committee of both houses inquiring of his involvement in
these white-supremacist organizations. This became the first use of the
5th amendment to avoid incrimination of oneself.

A partial transcription of this hearing follows:

In
pursuance of said order, the said sub-committee met on the 23rd day of
September, 1871 and one W. L. Saunders of Chapel Hill, North Carolina,
who had been duly subpoenaed as a witness to appear before the Joint
Select Committee of the two houses of Congress, then appeared, and
submitted to be examined as a witness, and was duly sworn by the
chairman of the Joint Select Committee. In the examination of said
witness, the following questions by the chairman, and answers by the
witness, were elicited:

Question:
The purpose of this committee is to inquire in relation to the
execution of the laws, and the security of life, person, and property in
the late insurrectionary states. As bearing upon that question, we
have been examining in regard to the existence of secret organizations
in the State of North Carolina, particularly those which are alleged to
have committed acts of violence. Have you been at any time, or are you
now, a member of any secret political organization of that character in
the State of North Carolina?

Answer:
Well, sir, I decline to say whether or not I have been a member of any
of the so-called Ku-Klux organizations, on the ground that I am not
obliged to testify in a case wherein I may incriminate myself...

Question: Do you decline to answer the question of the ground that you cannot do so without [in]criminating yourself?

Answer:
I decline to answer the question on the ground that if I testify in
this case, it will furnish evidence which will make me amenable to the
Laws of North Carolina, as declared by the judges of the Supreme Court
of North Carolina.

Question: Have you been at any time, or are you now, a member of an organization known as the White Brotherhood?

Answer: Well, sir, I conceive that that question comes in the same category.

Question: Do you decline to answer that question?

Answer: I decline to answer that question...

Question: Have you been at any time, or are you now, a member of an organization known as the Constitutional Union Guards?

Answer: To that I give the same answer.

Question: Have you been at any time, or are you now, a member of an organization known as the Invisible Empire?

Answer: I make the same answer as before.

Question: Have
you been at any time, or are you now, a member of any of the
organizations which are popularly known as the Ku-Klux organizations?

Answer: I make the same answer to all of these questions.

...Question:
Have you had any communication with persons who have stated to you
their knowledge of such murders or such whippings in the County of
Orange, in the State of North Carolina, or in any other part of the
State of North Carolina?

Answer: I have only one such conversation.

Question: With whom?

Answer: That I decline to answer.

Question: Where did he live...?

Answer: I decline...

Question: What position... did he occupy... ?

Answer: I decline...

Question: Was he a member of the legislature... ?

Answer: I decline...

Question: Was he a member of the bar?

Answer: I decline...

Question: Was he a leading man?

Answer: I decline...

Question: Do you decline to give any information may lead to the identity of that person?

Answer: Yes, sir; That is the sum and substance of it.

Question: What was the offense... ? Was it murder?

Answer: I decline...

Question: Was it whipping?

Answer: I decline...

...

Question: Do you know Henry Ivy?

Answer: No, sir...

Question: Do you know Abraham or Abe Hedgepeth?

Answer: Yes, sir. I know him.

Question:
Do you know whether he is or is not, or has he at any time told you
whether he is or is not, a member of any Ku-Klux organization?

Answer: I decline to answer.

This
line of questioning continued, asking Saunders to identify Ivy,
Hedgepeth, James Copeland, William Andrews, Jesse Morrow, the
wheelwright Nat. Williams, Fletcher Freeland of Durham at a station of
the North Carolina railroad, Samuel Johnson, William Minor, John Durham,
F. N. Strudwick, John McCauley, A. P. Cates, J. Cooley, J. Carmichael,
Dr. E. M. Holt, and a host of others... he refused every question. He boldlyrefused,
defying the federal government... eliciting great pride in his fellow
North Carolinians... a pride that has lingered through the decades...

Edwin
Michael Holt of Orange County mentioned above is of particular
interest. He was born 1807, married three times, lived variously in
Orange and Alamance Counties and died in 1884. The abstract for theAlamance Cotton Mill Records, 1839-1926 in the Southern Historical Collection at UNC states:

The Alamance Cotton Mill was established
by Edwin Michael Holt and his brother-in-law, William A. Carrigan, in 1837,
signalling the start of industrial development in Alamance County, N.C. The Alamance
factory was located on Great Alamance Creek, site of Holt's father's grist mill. The
plant was under Holt management for 89 years, during which time the Holt family
controlled most of the county's cotton manufacture.

Edwin's
son by his first marriage, Lawrence Shackleford Holt married in
Alamance County and had a son named Erwin Allen Holt, who also has a
collection available at the same archive. This son carried on the proud
North Carolina tradition of his grandfather.

Erwin
Allen Holt, textile executive from Burlington, was a member of an
organization named the North Carolina Defender of States' Rights, a
well-known white-supremacist and anti-government group. His papers
involve his "concerns about racial segregation, Jewish
control of the
federal government, strict interpretation of the
Constitution, the Status of Forces
Agreement, communism in the U.S., and Hawaiian
statehood," among others. Included is correspondence
about preventing racial integration, and
broadsides, leaflets, and circulars issued
by various right-wing organizations of which Holt
was a member." Much of the NC Defenders material consists
of copies of
letters from Sterling Rawlinson Booth, Jr., of Raleigh,
and Earle Le Baron, faculty
member of East Carolina College, to public officials,
Holt, and the membership. Common
topics are "liberals" at ECC and UNC, segregation, and
Communism, common topics often heard today.

This organization was formed in reaction to the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board decision
that desegregated all aspects of society. But, nothing could have been
more defining an influence as the Civil Rights decision in 1964, which
caused a huge migration of North Carolina conservatives over to the
growing conservative Republican party that year. The election maps show
this metamorphosis:

1954
pushed some southern conservative Democrats to go "undecided," but they all
voted "Republican" in 1964. This was the new brand of ultra-conservative, southern-fried Republican party, infused with the old Confederate ideology of "state's rights" and more fundamentalist Christianity. The "Solid South" turned radical Republican or what is known as the "Tea-Party" today. North Carolina remained the ultra-conservative of the conservatives, Confederate to its core... of the eleven
battleground states during the 2012 election, North Carolina is the only one that remained in support of the Republican candidate: Mitt Romney.

This ultra-conservative behavior was this open and apparent in the state only one other time: right before the Civil War. Illustrating this is North Carolina's response to the secession crisis in 1860,
they resisted it at first, and then poured more men into it than any
other state once the Civil War was on! North Carolinians apparently
like to pause and think first, which may be the quality that eventually
saves us. Still, once the decision is finally made, watch out!
Certainly, this last election provided Rob Christensen, reporter for the
Raleigh News &amp; Observer and author of A Paradox of Tarheel Politics more fuel for his writing! As the tagline for his book reads "How can a state be represented by Jesse Helms and John Edwards at the same time?" Indeed!One
thing about North Carolina that will not change until the demographics
force it... is this white-supremacism. Many residents have fervently
supported this since colonial days until the present day. And recently,
I've seen an increase in the open expression of it... namely in the use
of that word that we can't even bring ourselves to say completely in
print... "N------"! It used to be avoided in public, but not so much
lately. And, I, a white guy, was asked by a conservative "Why
don't I move to Chapel Hill with the rest of my kind," after he
discovered that I was progressive. lol Bullying is back in force, but
not quite as much as it was in 1870. This, too will subside... the bluster
will pass more quickly than when William L. Saunders created the White
Brotherhood. Progress will happen despite this hateful behavior. The old racist guard
is dying off. Still, the General Assembly since 2012 has been trying
very hard, as one writer put it inNorth Carolina Just Gave Millionaires a Tax Cut, Raised Taxes on the Poorest 900,000 Working Families, "The
combined effects of those tax changes give poor North Carolinians
some incentive to move out of the state, a population shift Gov. Pat
McCrory (R) hopes to encourage." Again, like during Reconstruction and 1898, North Carolina conservatives
are attempting to run off the "undesirables." It's not so bad,
though... today's open internet discussions, instant exposure to
criticism, make it more difficult to get away with murder or simply
"plead the 5th!" Radical racism is seeing it's final "Hoorah!" :)

---Still,
back in 1871, when more of the state supported him and criticism was
largely confined to official channels, William L. Saunders was told that
the 5th Amendment did not apply in Congressional hearings and he
stubbornly still refused to answer, safe in his clique.

Then,
Saunders was arrested for contempt and asked another round of questions
intimating that he was "held in high repute" as the leader of the White
Brotherhood. The federal committee knew this man's involvement... they
simply wanted him to openly admit it. Saunders declined to answer any
of these questions, making it quite clear that he was the leader and was
involved, however directly or indirectly in the murders of prominent
politicians in the state. He "declined to answer" the government's
attempts to seek justice for the murdered men.

Whether or not he was, as J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton
asserted, the head of the Invisible Empire in North Carolina, his
complicity was indicated by his being summoned in 1871 before the
congressional Joint Select Committee to Inquire into the Condition of
the Late Insurrectionary State. Face-to-face with his antagonists, he
repeatedly declined to answer questions concerning his relationship with
the organizations. In the same year a letter from "the brotheren"
warned that "bill sanders will swing."

At
the end of his life, the inscription on his tombstone expressed the
general feelings of the people of North Carolina about his anti-government views: "Distinguished
for wisdom, purity and courage - For 20 years he
exerted more Power in North Carolina than any other man - 'I decline to
answer'." Yep! Between Saunders, Holt, Helms, and today's North
Carolina General Assembly, the old Confederacy is still around... just
goes by a different name these days. In essence, conservatives never
left nor relinquished control of their state since before the United
States began! As I said, a source of great pride for them. I still
can't help but wonder if Martin Blalock refused to join the
brotherhood... if that was the true nature of his "crime."

William Lawrence Saunders SOLDIER-EDITOR-HISTORIAN-STATESMAN
PATRIOT Col. 46 Regiment N. C. Troops
Distinguished for wisdom, purity and courage For 20 years he
exerted more Power in North Carolina than any other man
"I decline to answer"

What Happened to the Republican Party of the 1950s?

Republicans of the 1950s once supported the policies of modern Democrats: anti-war, pro-union, pro-higher wages, pro-social security. Today, they have become extreme anti-humanity ad pro-corporate. What happened? Racist former Southern Democrats, the most conservative of all, took over the GOP.

Reasondom Donations

Please support progressive patriotism and getting the word out!

If you have or have not already supported any progressive candidates with your contributions, please consider donating to Reasondom. The research takes great effort, time, and money and is so worth achieving! Nothing works quite so well as raw truth to oppose the insanely false rhetoric espoused by the Right, particularly on their media mouthpieces. It's plainly there if you know where to look. The truth is what Reasondom works to discover and broadcast to the nation! Help us, won't you?